Sunday, October 18, 2009

A Reply to Yahya Snow's Comments on John 1:19-21 - Part One

In an article found here and here, an upstart Muslim apologist has attempted to write a refutation to brother Sam Shamoun’s short and extemporaneous but nonetheless devastating critique on the Aramaic Broadcasting Network (hereafter ABN) of the ill-conceived notion that John 1:19-21 has something to do with Muhammad (See here). In order to free Sam up for more pressing matters, the present writer has taken in hand to say something of what Sam himself would have said by way of response, especially if this dawagandist had called in to the broadcast to speak with Sam directly, something he was invited to do, but for some reason – no doubt a prudent one, at least when judged from the vantage point of the all too predictable outcome of such an exchange – declined. (In a future post, David will be providing some comments from Sam.)


************

With respect to Sam’s case on John 1, Yahya grants that it may have sounded pretty convincing to many people; yet, he says, with a little analysis it turns out to be full of holes. This means that if Yahya’s analysis doesn’t uncover these holes, then Sam’s response remains as it initially appeared: convincing.

In my estimation, Yahya’s refutation amounts to little more than a snow job (pun intended), an attempt to miss the obvious and abet others in doing the same. Here are my initial observations:

1. Yahya cites two examples of Muslim apologists who argue (so he says) from John 1 that Muhammad is “the Prophet”: 1) Jamal Badawi, in his pamphlet/paper “Muhammad in the Bible”; and 2) Zakir Naik, in his paper “Prophet Muhammad in the Bible.” However, the former never offers any argument for seeing the passage as a reference to Muhammad, and the latter never even so much as cites the passage. Moreover, Sam responded to Badawi’s paper long ago, “Answering Dr. Jamal Badawi: Muhammad in the Bible,” and, though Naik’s article hardly merits refutation, I’m sure if Yahya asks nicely, Sam would refute it as well. (Another response to Badawi, written by Samuel Green, can be found here.)

2. The above is most unfortunate, for with the exception of referring to the fanciful story that Muhammad miraculously fed his followers – obviously an embellished account by Muhammad’s overzealous followers to try and make him look more like Moses and Jesus – which contradicts the Qur’an (S. 28:48), Yahya completely avoids trying to personally prove that Muhammad is “the Prophet.”

3. Yahya also offers no positive evidence that the Prophet was predicted or even expected by the Jews to be a non-Israelite, and much less that the Jews expected the Prophet to be an Arab. Instead, Yahya contents himself with arguing that the evidence Sam provided does not prove that the Jews believed he was going to be an Israelite. (We will see)

4. The only thing Yahya really ends up trying to prove in his paper is the (relatively) uninteresting thesis that the Christ and the Prophet are two different people. But this, let it be remembered, and as Yahya grants at the end of his paper, is still a long ways off from proving that Muhammad was the prophet or even a prophet, a thesis Yahya wisely aborted anyway.

5. When it comes to the question of what the Jews believed about “the Prophet,” Yahya accuses Sam of reading his bias into the text, for nowhere in John 1 does it say that they believed “the Prophet” was going to be an Israelite. But Sam was talking about what the Jews assumed by their question, not what they said.

The salient facts that it was a delegation of Priests and Levites, i.e. Jews, who were sent by the Sanhedrin, i.e. Jews, to question John, a Jew, whether he was the Prophet promised to Israel, a nation of Jews, by Moses, a Jew, doesn’t seem to have affected Yahya very much. But if Sam’s view that the Jews assumed that the Prophet would be a Jew, as evidenced by the fact that they were questioning John the Baptist, is a case of reading his bias into the text, then what should we call it in Yahya’s case since he somehow sees a turban where everyone else can only see Yamakas?

(Nota Bene: It is important to keep in mind that Sam’s argument at this point was not that the prophet would be an Israelite simply because the Jews thought so; rather, he argued that if, as Muslims must concede, the Jews were mistaken in assuming that the prophet would be an Israelite, then Muslims also have to grant, at least in principle, that the Jews could have been wrong in drawing a distinction between “the Christ” and “the Prophet.”)

6. Since John (the Baptist) does not question or challenge the assumption of the Jews that the Christ and the Prophet are two different people – something easily accounted for by the fact that John is purposely being brief and dismissive in regard to himself, since his goal is to point people to the Messiah – Yahya says it suggests that John was aware of the distinction they drew and agreed with it. There are several responses to this:

a. Just because a person answers someone on their own terms, doesn’t mean they agree with their underlying assumptions. If it did, then this would backfire on Yahya; after all, it would mean that John also held the Jews’ assumption that “the Prophet” would be an Israelite. (See point #5)

b. If directly answering a person’s comments or questions without challenging all of their underlying assumptions is tantamount to agreeing with them, then it would also mean that Yahya accepts any assumption of Sam’s that he chose not to call into question; for example, that the Torah that we have was written by Moses.

c. Rather than seeing John’s terse replies as an indication that he agreed with the Jews, it can actually be argued that John answers “no, no and no” to their questions precisely because of their false assumptions.

7. By a happy “coincidence,” what Yahya is too blind to see, but prefers to write off as bias on Sam’s part, just happens to be exactly what we know from the historical record:

a) Not only do some ancient Jewish sources identify the Christ with the Prophet, but we have no evidence of any Jew of the time period who was expecting the Prophet to be a non-Jew or Arab.

b. In addition, even the Samaritans, according to authorities such as Grimm (Clavis N. T., p. 99) and Edersheim (LTJM, p. 278), believed the Christ and the Prophet to be designations that refer to one and the same person, and, therefore, to an Israelite.

c. In fact, the Jews of Muhammad’s time weren’t expecting a prophet from among the Arabs or pagans either; instead, they expected a prophet who would come to them and who would aid them against the disbelieving Arabs:

Asim b. ‘Umar b. Qatada told me that some of his tribesmen said: ‘What induced us to accept Islam, apart from God’s mercy and guidance, was what we used to hear the Jews say. We were polytheists worshipping idols, while they were people of the scriptures with knowledge which we did not possess. There was continual enmity between us, and when we got the better of them and excited their hate, they said, “The time of a prophet who is to be sent has now come. We will kill you with his aid as Ad and Iram perished.” We often used to hear them say this. When God sent His apostle we accepted him when he called us to God and we realized what their threat meant and joined him before them. We believed in him but they denied him…. (Sirat, p. 93)

Asim b. ‘Umar b. Qatada told me on the authority of some of the shaykhs of his tribe that they said that when the apostle met them he learned by inquiry that they were of the Khazraj and allies of the Jews. He invited them to sit with him and expounded to them Islam and recited the Quran to them. Now God had prepared the way for Islam in that they lived side by side with the Jews who were people of the scriptures and knowledge, while they themselves were polytheists and idolaters. They had often raided them in their district whenever bad feelings arose the Jews used to say to them, ‘A prophet will be sent soon. His day is at hand. We shall follow him and kill you by his aid as ‘Ad and Iram perished. So when they heard the apostle’s message they said one to another: This is the very prophet of whom the Jews warned us. Don’t let them get to him before us….(Sirat, p. 198)

According to what I heard from ‘Ikrima, freedman of Ibn ‘Abbas or from Sa’id b. Jubayr from Ibn ‘Abbas, the Jews used to hope that the apostle would be a help to them against Aus and Khazraj before his mission began; and when God sent him from among the Arabs they disbelieved in him and contradicted what they had formerly said about him. Mu’adh b. Jabal and Bishr b. al-Bara b. Ma’rur brother of the B. Salama said to them: ‘O Jews, fear God and become Muslims, for you used to hope for Muhammad’s help against us when we were polytheists and to tell us that he would be sent and describe him to us.’ Salam b. Mishkam, one of B. al-Nadir, said, ‘He has not brought us anything we recognize and he is not the one we spoke of to you.’ (Sirat, p. 257)

….before this Messenger came to them, they used to ask Allah to aid them by his arrival, against their polytheistic enemies in war. They used to say to the polytheists, “A Prophet shall be sent just before the end of this world and we, along with him, shall exterminate you, just as the nations of ‘Ad and Iram were exterminated.” Also, Muhammad bin Ishaq narrated that Ibn ‘Abbas said, “The Jews used to invoke Allah (for the coming of Muhammad) in order to gain victory over the Aws and Khazraj, before the Prophet was sent. When Allah sent him to the Arabs, they rejected him and denied what they used to say about him. Hence, Mu‘adh bin Jabal and Bishr bin Al-Bara’ bin Ma‘rur, from Bani Salamah, said to them, ‘O Jews! Fear Allah and embrace Islam. You used to invoke Allah for the coming of Muhammad and when we were still disbelievers and you used to tell us that he would come and describe him to us,’ Salam bin Mushkim from Bani Nadir replied, ‘He did not bring anything that we recognize. He is not the Prophet we told you about….Abu Al-‘Aliyah aid, “the Jews used to ask Allah to send Muhammad so that they would gain victory over the Arab disbelievers. They used to say, ‘O Allah! Send the Prophet that we read about – in the Tawrah – so that we can torment and kill the disbelievers alongside him.’ When Allah sent Muhammad and they saw that he was not one of them, they rejected him and envied the Arabs, even though they knew that he was the Messenger of Allah. (Ibn Kathir, Tafsir, Abridged, Vol. 1, p. 292-293)

(For part two, click here)

18 comments:

Yahya Snow said...

I did initially state that my response would be difficult to counter by Shamoun as I was employing an analytical approach and trying to be as neutral as possible. This has proven to be the case.

I have only just seen this article and I await for the completion of it and I will try to respond to it out of a courtesy, God-Willing.

My reason for dropping by was to inform you that I have responded to Shamoun's new video ( a response to myself) here:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TPOSiRqj1yk&feature=channel

Please do approve,I am sure you will...thanks.

IslamSINS said...

Micah 5:2 "But as for you, Bethlehem Ephrathah, Too little to be among the clans of Judah, From you One will go forth for Me to be ruler in Israel. His goings forth are from long ago, From the days of eternity." Jesus the Christ, not Muhammad the liar.

Pro 30:4 Who has ascended into heaven and descended? Who has gathered the wind in His fists? Who has wrapped the waters in His garment? Who has established all the ends of the earth? What is His name or His son's name? Surely you know! YHWH and his Only Begotten Son, Jesus the Christ, not Muhammad the liar.

Isa 9:6 For a child will be born to us, a son will be given to us; And the government will rest on His shoulders; And His name will be called Wonderful Counselor, Mighty God, Eternal Father, Prince of Peace. Jesus the Christ, not Muhammad the liar.

Joh 1:41 The first thing Andrew did was to find his brother Simon and tell him, "We have found the Messiah" (that is, the Christ). Not Muhammad the liar.

Joh 1:45 Philip found Nathanael and told him, "We have found the one Moses wrote about in the Law, and about whom the prophets also wrote--Jesus of Nazareth, the son of Joseph." Jesus the Christ, not Muhammad the liar.

Joh 1:49 Then Nathanael declared, "Rabbi, you are the Son of God; you are the King of Israel." Jesus the Christ, not Muhammad the liar.

Muslims can twist in the wind until judgment, but Muhammad was no Moses (and certainly no Christ the Messiah), Arabia is not Israel, the recycled pagan rock god of the kaaba k.a. Allah is not YHWH, Muslims are not Jews, Islam is not Judaism, and Islam's feeble attempt to flirt with truth only leads to their eternal destruction.

This is not a game of stamina nor wills. Eternity will not be determined by what happens during a debate. Heaven will not be handed over to the most loquacious. God - the true God of Israel - cannot, will not be bullied. Without the Son, you can't have the Father.

1Jn 2:24 As for you, let that abide in you which you heard from the beginning. If what you heard from the beginning abides in you, you also will abide in the Son and in the Father. - To deny the Son is anti-Christ, and Islam is an anti-Christ cult.

Joh 14:23 Jesus answered and said to him, "If anyone loves Me, he will keep My word; and My Father will love him, and We will come to him and make Our abode with him.

"Allah and his messenger" cannot possibly make their abode with us. They are fueled by the Pit, and to the Pit they are assigned for all eternity.

This isn't a game of words, and The Word is calling all men to worship God in spirit and in truth, not in rituals and taqiyya.

If we could gain Heaven through showmanship, then YHWH is a child abuser, allowing His Only Begotten to suffer Calvary for absolutely no reason. Allah might fancy himself the best of deceivers, and he has proved that with the Muslims. It also proves that Allah is Satan.

Krishnaraj said...

Aisha in Islam:
Let's discuss the age of Aisha being 9 when she married our Prophet in Islam!
First of all, it is important to know:
Aisha's parents were the ones who married her to our Prophet, and that no Muslim or even pagan objected to the marriage because it was widely practiced. And even until today in 3rd world countries (Muslims and non-Muslims), little girls as young as 9 or 10 do get married. Anyway, the reason no one objected was to the Prophet's marriage was:
1.
People used to have very short life-spans in Arabia. They used to live between 40 . So it was only normal and natural for girls to be married off at ages 9 or 10 or similar.
2.
Marriage for young girls was widely practiced among Arabs back then, and even today in many third-world non-Muslim and Muslim countries.
Prophet Muhammad's marriage with Aisha was 100% legal and acceptable by all laws and Divine Religions!

So to call Prophet Muhammad a pedophile for marrying a girl that was OFFERED TO HIM by her parents and was accepted by all of the people back then including the enemies of Islam, the pagans, is quite absurd.
The pedophilia in the bible was quite different, because girls were raped at 3-years of age by Moses and his men.

Also, in Exodus 21:7-11 as further elaborated on below, girls were sold off as slave girls by their own fathers to other men. So most certainly, no one is qualified to call the Prophet of Islam a pedophile!

Mr. Sam Shamoun of "Answering Islam" even admits that his grandmother was 12 when she got married:

I was told that Aisha was already engaged to a non Muslim man named Jober Ibn Al-Moteam Ibn Oday. Back then, the people of Mecca did not object to Aisha's engagement to Jober because she was physically big enough and tall enough to be considered for marriage. Her parents saw that and they engaged her to Jober.

Krishnaraj said...

Not only was it a custom in the Arab society to Engage/Marry a young girl it was also common in the Jewish society. The case of Mary the mother of Jesus comes to mind, in non biblical sources she was between 11-14 years old when she conceived Jesus. Mary had already been "BETROTHED" to Joseph before conceiving Jesus. Joseph was a much older man. therefore Mary was younger than 11years of age when she was "BETHROED" to Joseph. We Muslims would never call Joseph a Child Molester, nor would we refer to the "Holy Ghost" of the Bible, that "Impregnated" Mary as a "Rapist" or "Adulterer".
"....it is possible that Mary gave birth to her Son when she was about thirteen or fourteen years of age...." (Source) [2]


11- Joseph, Mary's husband, was "90 years old" when he married 12 to 14-year old Mary! Was he too a pedophile?

"When forty years of age, Joseph married a woman called Melcha or Escha by some, Salome by others; they lived forty-nine years together and had
six children, two daughters and four sons, the youngest of whom was James (the Less, "the Lord's brother"). A year after his wife's death, as the priests announced through Judea that they wished to find in the tribe of Juda a respectable man to espouse Mary, then twelve to fourteen years of age, Joseph, who was at the time ninety years old, went up to Jerusalem among the candidates; a miracle manifested the choice God had made of Joseph, and two years later the Annunciation took place."

Krishnaraj said...

- What about the Bible's Prophets' marriages?
When we read the Bible, we learn about some Prophets marrying many wives, even hundreds of wives in some cases. Let us look at some of the verses from the Old Testament:
In Exodus 21:10, a man can marry an infinite amount of women without any limits to how many he can marry.
In 2 Samuel 5:13; 1 Chronicles 3:1-9, 14:3, King David had six wives and numerous concubines.
In 1 Kings 11:3, King Solomon had 700 wives and 300 concubines.
In 2 Chronicles 11:21, King Solomon's son Rehoboam had 18 wives and 60 concubines.
And knowing that the Bible's Old Testament allowed before for men to have sex with girls who were at the age of 3, then it wouldn't surprise me that those Prophets who had 700 wives for instance, had many very young "teenage" girls before as their wives.
It wouldn't surprise me if they too had wives that were younger than Mary when she got pregnant, and younger than Aisha when she got married.
Since there are so many wives that those Prophets married (hundreds of wives), then how would anyone know that they didn't marry young women as our beloved Prophet peace be upon him did with his marriage to Aisha peace be upon her?

Krishnaraj said...

plz visit historical centres
THERE U WILL EVEN GET ARTICLES THAT
AISHA(MAY ALLAH BE PLEASED WITH HIM) WAS 19-21 YEARS OLD
WHEN SHE MARRIED OUR PROPHET AND YOUR PROPHET.

"Hikko Mamittakim we kullo Muhammadim Zehdoodeh wa Zehraee Bayna Jerusalem."
BIBLE MAY CHANGE FROM THIS LANGUAGE TO THAT LANGUAGE
BUT TRUTH REMAINS WAT MORE WILL U IGNORE
JUST B'COZ AISHA WAS MARRIED TWICE,HER AGE COULD BE THAT.
IT IS OF CHRISTIAN HISTORIANS.

1.
MUHAMMAD (PBUH) PROPHESISED IN THE BOOK OF DEUTERONOMY:

Almighty God speaks to Moses in Book of Deuteronomy chapter 18 verse 18:
"I will raise them up a Prophet from among their brethren, like unto thee, and I will put my words in his mouth; and he shall speak unto them all that I shall command him."
The Christians say that this prophecy refers to Jesus (pbuh) because Jesus (pbuh) was like Moses (pbuh). Moses (pbuh) was a Jew, as well as Jesus (pbuh) was a Jew. Moses (pbuh) was a Prophet and Jesus (pbuh) was also a Prophet.
If these two are the only criteria for this prophecy to be fulfilled, then all the Prophets of the Bible who came after
Moses (pbuh) such as Solomon, Isaiah, Ezekiel, Daniel, Hosea, Joel, Malachi, John the Baptist, etc. (pbut) will
fulfill this prophecy since all were Jews as well as prophets.
However, it is Prophet Muhammad (pbuh) who is like Moses (pbuh):

i)
Both had a father and a mother, while Jesus (pbuh) was born miraculously without any male intervention.
[Mathew 1:18 and Luke 1:35 and also Al-Qur'an 3:42-47]

ii)
Both were married and had children. Jesus (pbuh) according to the Bible did not marry nor had children.

iii)
Both died natural deaths. Jesus (pbuh) has been raised up alive. (4:157-158)
Muhammad (pbuh) is from among the brethren of Moses (pbuh).
I & MY MUSLIM BROTHERS HAVE ANSWERED EXCELLENTLY TO ALL YOUR ALLEGATIONS BUT U HAVE NOT TOUCHED OUR ALLEGATIONS
IN TOPIC WAS JESUS GOD? COME ON DON'T CONCEAL D TRUTH

Fernando said...

Another finne example of islamic comedie from Yahya Snow:

«I was employing an analytical approach»... ohhh, sure, everione arounde here are simply making dedeuctive analises...

«I will try to respond to it out of a courtesy»... ohhh... I'm just sooo above you all thate I'll dignifie you all withe mie gentle coments...

«Please do approve»... iff you do not aprove you know thate you'll bee recieving the muslim treatment...

at leats he did not asked to keep this debate off the public eyes as he has done in previous attempts...

Fernando said...

Krishnaraj saide: «Joseph, Mary's husband, was "90 years old" when he married 12 to 14-year old Mary»... oh man... is this a muslim paranoia? why do muslims insist in this lie?

Krishnaraj: please: just presente ONE SINGLE EVIDENCE to this claim you did from Chrsitian sources... thankes... iff you manage to do so I'll became again a muslim... and thate's a promisse...

more Krishnaraj... the major problem is not getting marriage (and I do beliebe that marrien a 6 years old girl is a problem)... the consumating off thate marriage is... the paedophilia is not marrying a child, rather makin sex withe this one...

more Krishnaraj: I also have a father and a mother; I am married and have children; and I'll certainly die off natural causes...

butt eben muhammad did not die from natural causes: he died from the efects of having been poisoned... butt here are some diferences between Moses and muhamamd that do not exist between Moses and Jesus:

Moses (and Jesus) was an israelite; muhammad was not;

Moses (and Jesus) was in Egipt; muhammad was not;

Moses (and Jesus) was disponeble to die for his people; muhammad was not;

Moses (and Jesus) delivered the divine Law near a mountain; muhammad delivered his human law by dictating it in his house;

Moses (and Jesus) talked face to face with God; muhammad did no such thing...

and so on...

Paul Guralivu said...

To Krishnaraj:

The 3 things you raised were addressed 1000 of times.
Serious now.
We christians got tired to actually prove to you from your how hadiths that:
a)Aisha was 6.
b)Aisha was asked by Muhammad, and not they way arround.
c)That jews were considering marriage between men and women and not boys and girls.

But for God's sake and His love for you muslims all around the world we Will put the Truth out:
a)Aisha was playing with dolls. Who could she have been 19-21 ?
Sunan Abu-Dawud Book 41, Number 4915, also Number 4915 and Number 4915
Narrated Aisha, Ummul Mu'minin:
The Apostle of Allah (pbuh) married me when I was seven or six. When we came to Medina, some women came, according to Bishr's version: Umm Ruman came to me when I was swinging. They took me, made me prepared and decorated me. I was then brought to the Apostle of Allah (pbuh), and he took up cohabitation with me when I was nine. She halted me at the door, and I burst into laughter.

Sahih Bukhari Volume 8, Book 73, Number 151
Narrated 'Aisha:
I used to play with the dolls in the presence of the Prophet, and my girl friends also used to play with me. When Allah's Apostle used to enter (my dwelling place) they used to hide themselves, but the Prophet would call them to join and play with me. (The playing with the dolls and similar images is forbidden, but it was allowed for 'Aisha at that time, as she was a little girl, not yet reached the age of puberty.) (Fateh-al-Bari page 143, Vol.13)

b)Aisha was asked.
Sahih Bukhari 7.18
Narrated 'Ursa:
The Prophet asked Abu Bakr for 'Aisha's hand in marriage. Abu Bakr said "But I am your brother." The Prophet said, "You are my brother in Allah's religion and His Book, but she (Aisha) is lawful for me to marry."

Paul. May the Light of God be out There.

Semper Paratus said...

Yahya Snow,

I know you styled your response an "anaylytical" one. My analysis of your article (so far) not only shows that you have triviliazed things by this procedure, but also that what you chose to deal with wasn't analyzed in a cogent way.

In other words, Yahya, your analysis has been shown to be as pure as the driven snow.

leviMichael said...

dear islamsins,
i couldn't have said it better myself...

i get really annoyed when people compare the LORD OF THE UNNIVERSE with scumbags like muhammad or buddha, etc, but i guess it has to be done in order to give a reason for the faith we have in us.

The Fat Man said...

I love this quote this is classic. Simply love it.

"The salient facts that it was a delegation of Priests and Levites, i.e. Jews, who were sent by the Sanhedrin, i.e. Jews, to question John, a Jew, whether he was the Prophet promised to Israel, a nation of Jews, by Moses, a Jew, doesn’t seem to have affected Yahya very much. But if Sam’s view that the Jews assumed that the Prophet would be a Jew, as evidenced by the fact that they were questioning John the Baptist, is a case of reading his bias into the text, then what should we call it in Yahya’s case since he somehow sees a turban where everyone else can only see Yamakas?"

minoria said...

Going to the MINIMALIST position again regarding Muslim opinions:yes,there is polygamy allowed in the Law of Moses,yes,David and Solomon had too many wives.

If an atheist were to condemn the Bible for that calling it immoral would we be in favor of sanctions against that?No.

True,in the past it was done but it was wrong,it went against the rule of "love your neighbor like yourself."(said by Jesus and Paul).

AND MUSLIMS?

Would Muslims do likewise to us non-Muslims?The majority no.So even if we are wrong about Aisha being 9 and not 18,we would still be firm about Mohammed not being in the NT,for example.

But saying that would mean we say the Koran has an error.And that in itself merits sanctions against us in the eyes of most Muslims.

minoria said...

I believe that the belief that when the PHARISEES and LEVITES asked John-Baptist "Are you the prophet" they meant ONLY a Jewish one is not to be dismissed.

What I mean is that it is BASED on ALL the documentary evidence we have about Jewish belief concerning the ethnicity of prophets century after century after century.

So the assumption that it only meant a Jew is 100% supported by the evidence.

READING BIAS INTO THE TEXT

It is not.It WOULD BE if there was LITTLE or NO documentary evidence century after century after century that the Jews only expected Jewish prophets to teach them about God."The prophet like Moses" has always been interpreted as referring to a Jewish one by them.

Semper Paratus said...

Yahya,

"I have only just seen this article and I await for the completion of it and I will try to respond to it out of a courtesy, God-Willing."

I see, so until I post part-two, the cat has your tongue? That makes it very tempting to never post it. After all, that means I will have achieved with half of my response something I wanted to achieve with the whole thing - your silence.

Nakdimon said...

Krishnaraj,

Like Sam said, Deuteronomy 18:18 doesn’t start at verse 18. Verse 18 is a repetition of verse 15. Here is what Deut 18:15 says:

נָבִיא מִקִּרְבְּךָ מֵאַחֶיךָ כָּמֹנִי, יָקִים לְךָ יְהוָה אֱלֹהֶיךָ: אֵלָיו, תִּשְׁמָעוּן

Navi MIQIRBEKHA may’akhikha, kamoni, yakim lekha YHWH Elohay-kha: elaaw tishma’oon.

A prophet FROM AMONG YOU, from among your brothers, like me, YHWH will raise up for you: to him you will listen.


The key word here is MIQIRBEKHA! This word means “from among you”. Speaking to the children of Israel, Moses is saying TO ISRAEL that the prophet would come FROM AMONG YOU. Not from among neighbouring nations, but from among Israel! There is no question that this prophet would be an Israelite. So, repeating verse 15, God says in verse 18 that Moses spoke correctly: The prophet was to come from the Israelites, just like Moses was from the Israelites.

The fact that you guys keep insisting that this can be about an Ishmaelite shows an abject lack of knowledge of Scripture! NOWHERE are the descendants of Ishmael and Isaac described as “brothers”. It doesn’t exist! The only non-Israelite nation that is ever labelled “brothers” of the Israelites, are the Edomites, the descendants of Esau, the brother of Jacob.

So NO! Deuteronomy 18:18 is NOT about Muhammad. For two main reasons:

1. He can’t be because of the textual evidence: The clear language that points everyone to prophet coming from among the Israelites
2. He can’t be because of the contextual evidence: The clear historical context that points to the request of the Israelites which Moses clearly points out. They requested a middle man, because they were scared to die if God continued to talk to them.


The jig is up Muslims. Muhammad is NOT in the Bible. Please try another text. I so look forward to it!

Nakdimon

Fernando said...

Brother Nakdimon: how did you managed to put hebrew characters?

Semper Paratus said...

Haaa...That should be "pure as the driven snow - NOT" above.